KEITH GINTER'S APPROACH
Believe me, this is not an attack on drawing walks. It's not necessarily an attack on taking pitches. But when people know what you're doing, sometimes you have to make adjustments. Look at Keith Ginter's 2004 numbers so far.

You can look at Ginter's complete breakdown on ESPN.com by clicking here.

231 total ABs
123 start out 0-1
97 start out 1-0
11 first pitch's in play

...Ginter takes a pitch about 90% of the time. Using these numbers is somewhat flawed because a foul-strike on the first pitch will go down as starting 0-1...Without counting foul-strikes 95% of his at-bats start out either 0-1 or 1-0. I'm assuming that he's fouled a few pitches off on the first pitch of an at-bat, which would put him between 90% and 93% on first-pitch takes.
...It's interesting to note that when KG starts out 0-1, as he has 123 times, he has only drawn five walks (OBP of .305).

Well what about when Ginter gets ahead, say 2-0...how does he fair?

231 total Abs
32 at-bats start out 2-0

...14% of his atbats get to 2-0. The main idea here being that it is difficult to get to a 2-0 count when other teams know a hitter is up there with the bat on his shoulder.

What amazes me is that Ginter has only 8 at-bats in 2-0 counts...Again, fouling off a pitch doesn't count as an "at-bat" on this ESPN.com statsheet, so it's not entirely accurate.

How about with a 2-1 count?

231 total ABs
57 at-bats start out 2-1

...25% of his at-bats get to a 2-1 count, which (without knowing MLB averages for this kind of thing) I would imagine is pretty good. This is where I see a problem though.

11 at-bats with a 2-1 count.

Meaning, KG is taking a lot of pitches at 2-1. This is where the "take a pitch for the sake of taking a pitch" idea is really flawed. By taking a strike 2-1 you're completely losing your advantage as a hitter. Again, lets break down his at-bats.

231 total ABs
57 at-bats start out 2-1
11 at-bats AT 2-1
58 at-bats at 2-2
32 at-bats at 3-2

The one thing I don't like about the ESPN.com breakdown is that it doesn't have 3-1 counts or breakdowns for 3-0 counts (although most hitters don't swing 3-0). With the data I have, and from watching a lot of Keith Ginter in person, I would conclude that he needs to be more aggressive.

I know telling somebody to be "more aggressive" at the plate has turned into a sin in the blogosphere/SABRQuixotic world, but I think there are cases when it's true.

As a hitter you want to be able to work your way to hitter's counts...2-0, 2-1, 3-1...If you're up there taking a strike, and EVERYBODY knows it, you're rarely going to get into those counts.

I've never understood the mentality of "taking a pitch for the sake of taking a pitch". Sure it has it's time and place, but when you're letting fastballs go down the middle of the plate consistently, what is the point of that? If the best pitch you see in an at-bat is the first one, why not swing at it? How many first-pitch fastballs does BARRY BONDS let go down the middle of the plate? I know a counter argument to that would be "he doesn't see many" but if he were to see a first-pitch fastball down the middle of the plate say 50% of the time, do you think he'd revert to automatically taking it? I GUARANTEE that he would be up there hacking.

I know Ginter has the perfect SABRQuixotic approach to hitting. He is hitting .260/.331/.437, which is good for a backup infielder/utilityman type player, but how great of an approach can he have if he has more K's than hits?

Again, in conclusion, I think Ginter would benefit from being more aggressive at the plate. As I said in my "SABRQuixotic" posts and my "Selective Aggressive" posts a few months back, being "aggressive" at the plate doesn't mean swinging at breaking balls in the dirt on the first pitch...It means looking for your pitch and when it comes driving it with power.